Table of contents

Chapter V - St. Paul's Church

The First intimation of the building of
the church (Plates 11, 12, 13, 14, 15,
16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25) is in May
1631, when the 'new intended Churchyarde' is mentioned. (fn. 57) Work began on 5 July of
that year, (fn. 58) and the clerk of works was paid for
seventy-four weeks' attendance. (fn. 59) It is not known
whether that period was continuous: if it was,
building must have ended about December 1632.
In September of that year, however, some stone
had still been awaiting shipment from Portland, (fn. 60)
and it is likely that the seventy-four weeks'
employment was discontinuous in the winter,
which would probably have carried the work into
the summer or autumn of 1633. (fn. 1) A contemporary reference to the cross erected on the east end
of the roof is probably not later than that year (fn. 62)
(see page 322), and the substantial completion
of the church by then would be consistent with
the known employment of some of the workmen
on the 'portico houses' in the Piazza, which were
probably begun in about 1633 (see page 78).
When the fourth Earl of Bedford obtained a confirmatory building licence on 30 June 1635 this
gave retrospective permission for the construction
of the church, which had not been specifically
mentioned in his licence of 1631, and which was
said to be then finished. (fn. 63) By February 1635/6
the Earl had disposed of his pew in the motherchurch of St. Martin in the Fields. (fn. 64) A dispute
with the vicar of that parish, however, delayed the
consecration of the new church until 27 September 1638. (fn. 65)(fn. 2)

The church is probably best known in the
anecdote of the Earl of Bedford and Inigo Jones,
published by Horace Walpole in 1765 as told to
him by Arthur Onslow (1691–1768), Speaker of
the House of Commons. 'When the Earl of
Bedford sent for Inigo, he told him he wanted a
chapel for the parishioners of Covent-garden, but
added, he wou'd not go to any considerable expence; in short, said he, I wou'd not have it much
better than a barn.—well! then, replied Jones,
you shall have the handsomest barn in England.' (fn. 70)
The possible relevance of the story to Jones's
search for an elemental classicism has been explained by Sir John Summerson. (fn. 71) But the
evidential value of the anecdote may be little more
than that of an ex post facto joke, and the relationship between the church consecrated in 1638 and
the church first intended is more difficult to
determine than the downright attitudes of the
anecdote suggest. (fn. 3)

Designed by the Court architect, paid for by a
Puritanically inclined grandee aloof from the
royal circle, subject to the authority of churchmen militant against the vigorous unconformity
of Londoners, the Covent Garden church was
very apt to be influenced in its genesis by strong
contrary forces. And as the first completely new
Anglican church to be built in London since the
mid sixteenth century, strikingly novel in its
architecture, and conspicuously part of a 'newsworthy' enterprise, it was the more liable to
comment and criticism. The liturgical questions
posed by the building of the church were bitterly
contested in the 1630's, and these conflicts did
affect very significantly its initial development.
That there seems nevertheless to be only one
important reference to the church in contemporary controversy is somewhat remarkable: possibly the very diversity of the powerful interests
concerned in building the church deterred the
polemicists of any one faction.

That the King's concern with the building of
the church was real is suggested by an entry in
the Privy Council's registers on 31 August 1632.
This recorded the grant of a safe-conduct for
the shipment by sea of 'a great quantity of Stone
provided at Portland . . . to be brought to London, and ymployed for his majesty's service at
Whytehall, and the Church in Coven Garden,
and other places'. (fn. 73) The Earl of Bedford's
financial responsibility for the work is not in
question; but, no doubt by reason of Jones's
employment on the design, some of the privileges
of royal building-operations were evidently made
available to the Earl.

His own attitude, in one of its aspects, is no
doubt indicated fairly enough by Walpole's anecdote. The existence of a church on the estate
helped the disposal of leases (as an unsympathetic
inhabitant noted in 1642 (fn. 74)), and the careful
building accounts suggest that the Earl had some
regard for economy. (fn. 4) But the social level at
which the estate was developed makes it unlikely
that he can ever have thought that his tenants
would tolerate untransmuted cheapness in the
design of the church. Nor is it likely that the
Earl, whose concern with religious questions is
demonstrated in his common-place books, would
have been unaffected by contemporary disputes
over forms of worship and its material modes.
Jones's Roman Catholic chapels at Somerset
House and St. James's were not outwardly
elaborate; but the almost harsh plainness of the
temple in Covent Garden seems eloquent of
aspirations to the purity of the early uncorrupted
church. The Pauline dedication may be thought
consistent with this.

Such ideals, if they existed, would not necessarily have been unacceptable to Laud as Bishop
of London. It does appear, however, that in fact
the Earl was originally willing to see his church in
definitely anti-Laudian terms.

Of Laud's opponents in the early 1630's the
best organized were probably the London Puritans known as the feoffees for the purchase of
impropriations. (fn. 76) From about 1625 onwards
they had bought up ecclesiastical revenues in lay
hands in order to finance the maintenance of
Puritan ministers. In January 1632/3 the
Attorney General prosecuted them in the Court
of Exchequer; and for want of incorporation
their activities were declared illegal and their
funds confiscated. In the course of the suit the
Attorney General asserted that they had tried to
purchase the patronage of some churches that
were as yet uncompleted. Among others 'they
treated . . . for the new Church in Covent
Garden . . . and they deale with [blank in original]
to procure the same to be settled upon the feoffees,
And for this they offer to the Earle of Bedford by
the said [blank] 1000 li. . . .' The feoffees did not
deny this, except to imply that the Earl initiated the
proposal. In their version, 'A Lord sent his
solicitor to them about the Church in Covent
Garden whoe proposed the thing unto them, but
nothing more was done . . .' The Attorney
General did not pursue the matter, telling the
feoffees that he had mentioned Covent Garden
'but to shew your vast appetite to get many
Churches and to obteyne supreme Patronage'. (fn. 77)(fn. 5)

The one important reference to the church
that has been found in the literature of the liturgical controversy is yet more significant, as bearing
directly on its architectural form. The author is
William Prynne, and his testimony, although
biased, may be believed, since it accounts for what
is otherwise puzzling. This is the siting of the
church with its grand portico leading to nothing
more than a false door behind the communion
table. Prynne tells us that the explanation lies in a
frustrated attempt to defy the traditional orientation of churches. Writing in 1636 he sought to
question the Laudian insistence on an eastern
altar by citing churches where this custom was
not observed. Among them had been 'the
new Church in Court [sic for Covent] Garden,
which as it stands not now perfectly East and
West, so at first the Chancle of it stood towards
the West part; Which some Prelates (without
Law, Canon, and reason, I know not upon what
superstitious overweaning conceit) commanded to
be altered and transformed to the other end, to the
great expence of the builder, the hindrance, and
deformity of that good worke'. (fn. 78)

Of the circumstances of this enforced transformation nothing is known. It was presumably
the act mainly of Laud as Bishop of London,
before his translation to Canterbury in September
1633, for the building accounts, which suggest
that work began at the west end, contain a number of references to alterations evidently made
fairly soon after the commencement in July
1631. (fn. 79) The personal relationship between the
Earl and the ecclesiastical authorities in this episode is obscure. (fn. 6)

No more is known or can be inferred of Jones's
attitude to the doctrinal aspects of the change.
The successful designer of Roman Catholic
chapels, but described by a papal agent as Puritanissimo fiero and by a Capuchin Father as senza
religione, (fn. 82) he may have been indifferent to the
internecine conflicts of Anglicanism.

Despite this alteration, the deliberated severity
and scholarly primitivism of the church as built
seem to have survived any modification, to express
one of Jones's profoundest creative impulses. (fn. 7)
There is, nevertheless, an indication that, apart
from the reversal of plan, the conception of the
church may originally have been even nearer to
simplicity of form. The vestry and belfry attached to the church are mentioned in the
building accounts and were certainly built contemporaneously with it. In a document recorded
in Strype's Survey and dated 1632 or earlier,
however, a site at the north-east corner of
Henrietta Street is said to be 'preserved for a
Vestrv-House'. (fn. 83) This intention was not carried
out and by 1633 two houses had been built on the
site, (fn. 84) but Jones's scheme may originally have
required neither of the buildings attached to the
church, which impair its integrity of form. In
this respect Hawksmoor's later representation of
St. Paul's as a 'Tuscan temple' (fn. 85) (fig. 3 on
page 66) perhaps comes near to Jones's first
idea. (fn. 8)

Even as built, the church ignored tradition by
virtue of its unitary basic form; yet in the end it
conformed well enough to the requirements of the
Laudian church. The communion table was set
against the east wall, (fn. 87) elevated by one step, and
probably railed-in on a black and white marble
pavement. (fn. 88) The eastward third or so of the
church (35 feet 7 inches in depth) was designated
a chancel. (fn. 89) It was raised one step above the body
of the church, and pews were placed 'about the
Chancell', perhaps collegiate-fashion. (fn. 90)(fn. 9); The
great flat ceiling (hardly smaller than that of the
Banqueting House) was painted in perspective
with 'Groteske and other ornaments'. (fn. 94) A
designedly 'Puritan' church would probably have
had galleries, which St. Paul's at first did not,
although the lack was soon remedied by the inhabitants. Outside, the plain wooden crosses at
each end of the roof were apt to give offence to
Puritans. (fn. 10) By the standards of Victorian
ecclesiology much was certainly wanting. The
basic form rejected the architectural separation of
nave from chancel. There was no stained glass,
and no organ. Nor, as far as the Earl's accounts
indicate, was there an altarpiece, and the communion table was plain and cheap compared with
the carved white marble font and the yet more
expensive carved pulpit and reader's desk. (fn. 11) The
bishop, indeed, evidently felt the need to order
the addition of 'ornaments' before the consecration. (fn. 96) But judged by the tenets of Caroline
churchmanship St. Paul's was as un-Puritan as it
was Protestant.

The account of the Earl's expenses in building
the church, which survives among the archives of
the Bedford estate, (fn. 58) makes no mention of Jones
(or of any payment to a supervising architect or
surveyor). It should therefore be said that the
attribution of the design to him need not be
doubted. The most direct evidence of his authorship has been noticed by Sir John Summerson in
Jones's annotated copy of Vitruvius, where his
comment on a mistake commonly made in the
interpretation of the term antepagmenta—'and so
I did in Covent Garden'—refers to the great cornice of the church. (fn. 97) His responsibility for the
design is stated by his pupil Webb. (fn. 98) At the
consecration Jones was among those present. (fn. 99)(fn. 12)

A contemporary reference to Jones's authorship of the design should be mentioned here. In
1636 Samuel Hartlib, the educationalist, made
some notes in his journals about the poet and
courtier, Sir Francis Kynaston, who had established an academy in Covent Garden (see pages
254–8), and with whom he had recently become
acquainted. Of Kynaston he writes: 'No friend
to Indigo Jones [sic] nor Webbe. The Surveyor
committed a great fault in building the ch. in
Common-garden, having over-swayed the K. to
direct alone that building, a foule error against
Art'. (fn. 102) It is difficult to assess the significance of
this remark. If it derives, as seems likely, from
Kynaston it may be invalidated by a presumed
animus against Jones. As it stands, it is at least
consistent with the indications that an initial
design was distorted or mutilated, perhaps as a
consequence of the architect's failure to consult
the authorities concerned with the building's use. (fn. 13)

The church-building account contains two
names which can be associated with Jones. The
clerk of works was Robert Cooke, who was about
to be employed in the same capacity at the repair
of St. Paul's cathedral. Of greater importance was
the signatory of the account, Edward Carter, who
was to sign the cathedral repair accounts as
Jones's substitute from 1633 to 1641. (fn. 103) He
subsequently succeeded to Jones's post as surveyor
in the Office of Works. (fn. 104) It is not clear from the
account whether Carter signed it on behalf of the
Earl or Jones. He was to become a prominent
inhabitant of Covent Garden and resided in a large
house in King Street from 1633 to 1650. (fn. 105) In
1638–9 he figured in chapelry matters, acting as
nominee for the Earl and, it seems, advising him. (fn. 106)
He became one of the 'governors' or vestrymen
of the parish in 1646. In 1645–8 he was one of
the 'triers' of candidates for eldership in the
Presbyterian organization of London churches (fn. 107)
and was probably the Edward Carter who was put
on various taxation and militia committees for
Middlesex or Westminster by Parliamentary
ordinances between 1643 and 1652. Conceivably
indicative of a connexion with the Russells is the
presence of an Edward Carter on such committees
for Bedfordshire in 1643 and 1652. (fn. 108)(fn. 14);

The accounts (which are printed on pages 271–
281) show that the work was distributed among
many contracting tradesmen. Apart from Cooke,
bills were paid to twenty-one building tradesmen
or partnerships (twenty-five tradesmen in all), to
five tradesmen who dug the foundations, to
twenty-three builders' merchants, and to six
tradesmen providing carriage or scaffolding. (fn. 15)

Some of these tradesmen—the glazier, Bagley,
one or both of the bricklayers, Benson, the painter,
Goodericke, the masons, Mason and Styles, the
joiner, Penson, the carpenters, Ryder and Poole,
and the woodcarver, Tailor—had received or
were receiving payment from the Office of
Works, (fn. 109) and Mason, Styles, Penson, the stonecarver Carne, and the plumber Charley, were to
work on the repair of St. Paul's cathedral. (fn. 103)(fn. 16)

The cost of the work as contained in the Bedford estate account (which, as will be seen, is not
quite the same as the Earl's total outlay, or the
final cost to him) amounted to £4,886 5s. 8d.
Excluding a few trivial payments, about £3,100
was paid to building tradesmen, £1,419 to builders'
merchants, £312 for scaffolding, carriage and
digging, and £45 to the clerk of works. The last
was paid about 2s. a day, the same rate as at St.
Paul's cathedral.

Of the main materials used, the timber, bricks,
tiles, sand and lime were bought from builders'
merchants: the 884,500 bricks at rates of 11s.–
14s. per thousand and the 23,290 Flanders
pantiles at £5 12s. 6d. per thousand. (fn. 17) A partial
exception, however, is the purchase of some of the
timber from the carpenter, Richard Ryder, who
was also paid 'for horse hire and rideing charges
into the West Country to buy oaken Timber'. (fn. 112)
The other materials, including stone, marble and
paving, were not paid for separately, being provided by the tradesmen who worked them. The
shipment of stone from Portland under royal
safe-conduct has already been noted.

Some subdivision is apparent in the allocation
of work. Different bricklayers tiled over the body
of the church and over the portico. The leadwork was divided between two independent
plumbers. Inside, the joiner's work was performed by two tradesmen, one chiefly on the
south and east sides, the other chiefly on the north
and west. The woodwork of the pulpit was divided
between the carpenter, joiner and carver.

Two entries throw some light on the method of
work. Payment was made for fencing an area
'where the Roufe of the Church was Framed', (fn. 112)
and for the construction of 'a Flower [floor] to
draw out the Tracerie of one of the great Collumes', (fn. 113) that is, presumably, its entasis. Jones's
care for the exact achievement of his intention
appears in two other items. The painter's work
on the eaves included 'shaddowing the squares
of 92 great pannells betweene the Cantelivers', (fn. 114)
and payment was made for red, black and yellow
ochre to colour the mortar in which the red and
black glazed pantiles of the roof were set. (fn. 115)

Two journeys were made during the course of
the work to consult with the Earl or his agents,
one to Woburn when it was found that a sewer
would cross the City's water pipes, (fn. 116) and one for
an unspecified purpose 'to my Lord of Bedford
which then was at Sherbourne'. (fn. 117)(fn. 18)

The total outlay of some £4,886 particularized
in the Bedford estate account included the pews
and other major furnishings of the church. A
contemporary manuscript in the British Museum
records additional items of expenditure, evidently
by the Earl, totalling some £487. (fn. 19); Part of this
was spent on the consecration itself, the plate,
bible, service-books and upholstery. Some £139
of it, however, was said to have been spent on
'buildinge of brick walls', 'masons worke about
the chancell' and 'alteracion of the Chancell and
pewes'. It is less likely that this refers to the
complete reorientation already mentioned than to
a late change required by the bishop 'for the
greater decency of the said Chappell', after
wainscoting had been virtually completed. (fn. 119)

The Earl's total outlay thus probably amounted
to about £5,373. It seems, however, that before
the consecration he and the inhabitants of Covent
Garden agreed that he should be reimbursed by
them for his expenses on the pews and the items
mentioned in the British Museum document,
amounting to some £1,066. This was to be
effected by the sale to the inhabitants of lifeinterests in the pews. A dispute arose, but the
agreement was confirmed and enforced in 1639
by the Bishop of London and the Privy Council. (fn. 119)
In 1657, after the Earl's death, his outlay on the
church procured an abatement of £7,000 in the
fine levied on the Covent Garden property of
the fifth Earl and his brothers, in the Act to prevent the increase of building in London. (fn. 120) Thus
the bread cast by the fourth Earl on the waters
was found again in the next generation.

Until 1638 the church remained without
consecration, a ceremony very offensive to many
Puritans. In 1636 Prynne commented that the
building 'must not be used for a Church, because
not consecrated by a Bishops conjuring white
Rocher; which consecration I have manifested
to be against Law, & utterly exploded as a Romish
Relique'. (fn. 78) The cause of the delay was a dispute
over the parochial independence of the precinct
and the patronage of the living between the Earl
and the vicar of St. Martin in the Fields, William
Bray. The vicar (one of Laud's chaplains) argued
that an Act of Parliament was necessary to create
a new parish out of St. Martin's. In April 1638
the Privy Council decided in his favour. It
ordered that when a Parliament was next held the
church should be made parochial, with the patronage vested in the Earl, but that meanwhile the
church should be consecrated as a chapel of ease to
St. Martin's. The vicar of that parish was to
provide the curate and his stipend. (fn. 121)

On 26 September 1638 the Earl and the inhabitants of Covent Garden on the one hand, and
Bray and the churchwardens and parishioners of
St. Martin's on the other, signed an agreement
delimiting the physical boundaries and the degree
of independence of the new chapelry. Its
inhabitants were charged with the repair of the
church, 'except that parte which concernes the
viccar of St. Martins', perhaps the eastward third
which the agreement delimited and designated as
the chancel. (fn. 122) On the same day the Earl made an
act of donation of the site of the church and
churchyard, measuring 251 feet by 145 feet
3 inches, and the three entrance passages to north,
south and west. (fn. 123)

On the next day, 27 September 1638, the
church was consecrated by William Juxon,
Bishop of London, and dedicated to St. Paul. (fn. 20)
The servants of a nobleman close to the King,
the Duke of Lennox, were paid by St. Martin's
for pitching a tent 'against the Bishopps coming'. (fn. 110)
At the ceremony the royal family was represented
by Sir Edmund Verney. Others present included
the Earl, Jones, Carter, the vicar of St. Martin's,
and another of Laud's chaplains, William
Haywood, vicar of St. Giles in the Fields. (fn. 99) The
determination of the authorities of St. Martin in
the Fields to retain their parochial rights over the
new chapelry perhaps explains the fact that in the
St. Martin's churchwardens' accounts the ceremony is throughout described as the consecration
of a 'new churchyard' without any intimation that
a place of worship stood in it. (fn. 110)

On 6 October the first curate, Samuel Porter,
M.A., was admitted to his office in the chapel. (fn. 125)
Among the later incumbents the names of
Thomas Manton (1656–62) and Simon Patrick
(1662–89) reflect the attraction of the Covent
Garden pulpit for distinguished churchmen of
various persuasions. Perhaps the greatest, however, to be associated with St. Paul's was James
Ussher, Archbishop of Armagh, who was living
in Covent Garden at the end of 1640, (fn. 126) and
preached regularly in the chapel in 1641 and 1642,
with the support of voluntary subscriptions from
the inhabitants. (fn. 127) It was while preaching here
that he was summoned to join four other bishops
in advising the King whether to consent to
Strafford's execution. (fn. 128)

The fabric of the church was not to remain
untouched for long. Its history in the next twenty
troubled years or so is obscure. This is partly
owing to the paucity or illegibility of surviving
records. (fn. 21) It is also in part owing to the tendentious nature of their testimony, as the affairs of the
chapelry became involved in an entanglement
of disputes, between the Earl and some of the
inhabitants, between the inhabitants themselves,
and between the inhabitants and the parochial
authorities of St. Martin's. As early as the November after the consecration some petitioners to the
Privy Council against the Earl's demand for pewmoney were complaining, among other things,
that the church was 'defectively built in the
Roofe'. (fn. 129) Their petition was found to be
generally baseless, (fn. 130) but the strictures on the roof
seem to have been justified. (fn. 22) A churchwarden
from 1640 to 1644 spoke in 1650 of a time during his period of office when 'the Roofe of the
Church was in danger to fall', (fn. 132) and repairs were
made to it at various times in the 1640's. By
November 1646 the dormer windows which
disfigured Jones's pantiled slopes until the late
eighteenth century had been inserted. (fn. 133)

A greater change was the construction of
galleries inside the church. The south gallery
was built by virtue of an agreement of May 1643
to which the fifth Earl and some of the inhabitants were parties. Work was in progress in 1647
and 1649, (fn. 133) and by 1655 a north gallery had also
been built. (fn. 134) Whether galleries were built all
round the church at this period is not certain.
By 1670 there was a gallery at the east end. (fn. 135) In
1674–5 there was still room at the west end to
build a gallery there. (fn. 136)

This mutilation of Jones's interior scheme in
the 1640's and 1650's occasioned a further
blemish on the exterior, the erection of the outside staircases on the north and south sides near
the east end. The steps at the north (and also,
presumably, south) end of the portico were added
about this time. (fn. 23)

The overthrow of the Laudian church brought
its own changes, and St. Paul's was 'dispoyled' of
its chancel. (fn. 137) The greatest alteration was evidently the removal of the communion table to the
north wall. This is known only from a later
rector, writing in 1756 to the Duke of Bedford,
who stated that at a period subsequent to the
Restoration the altar was moved back 'from the
North side to the East as it now stands'. (fn. 138) The
imperfect contemporary records do not mention
this explicitly but reveal that the marble paving
was taken up by the churchwardens, and in 1649
sold for £5 17s. 6d. to Mr. Styles (doubtless one of
the tradesmen who had supplied it). A new
communion table was evidently provided, as in
October 1646 a joiner was paid £10 towards his
bill 'for Communion Table and forms'. The
pulpit was moved to a different position, and
altered, in 1647; the changes involved mason's
and bricklayer's work. The iron, wood-encased
pillars which had supported the pulpit were sold
in 1649 to the carpenter, Ryder. In 1647 also,
the carved font was removed, and replaced by a
'stone bason', costing £2 10s. (fn. 133)(fn. 24);

In the period 1640–4 the 'Clock and hand'
had been 'sett up', for which the clockmaker,
Nurce or Nurse, was paid £24 12s. (fn. 132) This was
perhaps the clock in the tympanum of the eastern
pediment shown in Hollar's view of the Piazza
(Plate 12a). (fn. 25)

On 7 January 1645/6 an ordinance of the
Lords and Commons declared the precinct of
Covent Garden parochial. (fn. 148) At the Restoration
this was replaced by an Act of Parliament, of 29
December 1660. (fn. 149)

The ordinance, confirmed by the Act, vested
the patronage of the living in the fifth Earl and
his heirs, who retained it until 1938, when it was
transferred to the Bishop of London. (fn. 150)

With the return of the King and the reestablishment of the Anglican hierarchy some of
the previous changes were reversed, and adornments introduced that probably went beyond
the earlier simplicity; again, however, the evidence for these changes is imperfect.

A joiner, Green, was paid £21 for 'the Branch'
early in 1662. (fn. 136) The more important changes,
however, had to await the replacement of the
Presbyterian Thomas Manton as rector by
Simon Patrick in September of that year. (fn. 151) The
Bishop of London thereupon authorized a select
vestry to remedy the despoliation of 'the Font
Chauncell Communion table plate and other holy
Utensills and ornaments' which had occurred
'by the Iniquity of ye late tymes of trouble'. (fn. 152)
Evidence of the subsequent changes is fragmentary, but in 1668–9 payments are recorded for
embellishments. The east end was wainscoted and
carved by a City craftsman, the joiner William
Cleare, and inscribed with gilt lettering. Two
'models' were drawn, one of 'perspective worke
for the wall behind the Comunion Table' by a
'limner', Edward Kickins (or Kickius), and another
of 'wainscot for the communion table' by a joiner,
Kennard (perhaps Thomas Kinward, Master
Carver of the Office of Works). 'Capt. Rider'
was paid a guinea for 'surveyghing ye Church'
and 'ordering' the wainscot at the east end, which
was thus perhaps of his designing. These changes
doubtless betoken the restoration of the communion table to the east end, despite the existence
of an east gallery by about this time. (fn. 26) A joiner,
Joseph Dawson, provided a font cover, gilded by
James Newman, and decorated with an eagle
carved by the City carver, Richard Cleare. Brass
branches were provided by Joseph Sylvester for the
pulpit, desk and pillars. Church plate was also
bought at this period. (fn. 153)(fn. 27)

The crosses on the roof had probably been
removed and were perhaps not replaced, as a
'vane' is mentioned in 1675. (fn. 136)

In 1671 'the Picture' was put up, (fn. 136) probably
the painting of Charles I on the north side of the
chancel, which showed him 'kneeling, with a
Crown of Thorns in his Hand, his Crown and
Scepter lying by'. (fn. 154) In 1674–5 a gallery was
built at the west end, costing some £312. (fn. 155)(fn. 28) By
1681 the painted ceiling and ceiling-joists badly
needed attention and repairs were ordered. The
King's arms were ordered to be set up at the same
time, (fn. 156) but payment seems not to have been made
until 1685, when Lord, carver, Knight, joiner,
and Clothier, painter and gilder, received £55
for the work. (fn. 157)

In the latter year the vestry paid £2 3s. to a
Captain Johnson (perhaps Henry Johnson of
James Street (fn. 105)) 'for Surveying ye Church and a
Draught of a Mapp as the Church now is and as it
was desined to be altered'. (fn. 145) Two years later the
church was again surveyed by 'Capt. Ridder
[Richard Ryder], Mr Petite and others', (fn. 157)
and the vestry made an order 'for Repaireing and
Amending the Church, Church porch and
Belferey'. (fn. 158) The churchwardens' bills for
builders' work in 1687 are not very large. (fn. 157) They
do not survive, however, for the following year,
and the date 1688 carved on the great west door
in Sandby's view published in 1766 (Plate 15a)
suggests that considerable work may have been
done. (fn. 159)

One payment was for 'Guilding ye ball of
Cuppillo' (fn. 157) which perhaps indicates that by this
time the bell-turret (presumably of timber) had
been built at the west end of the main roof, as
shown on Richard Blome's map of c. 1686 and in
the 1717 volume of Vitruvius Britannicus (Plates
6, 13). (fn. c1) Campbell shows it to have been 10 feet
square in plan, with a simply panelled shaft
forming the base of the belfry stage. Each face
of this contained an opening having a splay-sided
head, framed with an architrave and flanked by
plain-shafted Doric pilasters supporting forward
breaks in the entablature. The leaded roof of
ogee profile was crowned with a small pedestal,
surmounted by a gilt ball and weather vane.

In 1694–5 'two figures of St. Paul' were set up
'in the Church and Vestry', as the gift of Edward
Parr, glazier: (fn. 160) two figures of apostles executed
in painted glass by Parr in the windows at the east
end are said to have borne the date 1695. (fn. 159)

In 1701 the belfry on the south-west side of
the church was ordered to be fitted as a schoolroom. (fn. 161)

The early years of Anne's reign saw further
embellishment of the church. At the east end the
'Altar and Communion Table' was overshadowed
by the gallery above it, and in 1704 the bishop
authorized the removal of part of the gallery to
accommodate a new altarpiece, to be paid for by
voluntary contributions. (fn. 162) The altarpiece (Plate
23a), which had been installed by 1708, occupied
almost the full height of the east end and incorporated the round window into its design: (fn. 157) (it
was altered, at no great cost, in 1726). (fn. 163) The
gallery, being found still obstructive, seems to have
been taken away entirely by 1714. (fn. 164) The pulpit
was moved between 1703 and 1705, but its
position is not known. (fn. 165) The second Duke of
Bedford gave £212 10s. towards the cost. (fn. 166)
In 1705 and again in 1706 the churchwardens
reported to the vestry that the roof was in very
bad repair, and were ordered to amend it. (fn. 167)

In 1708 the first extensive description of the
church (which tells us, among other things, that
the exterior walls were not then of bare brick) was
given in Hatton's New View of London: (fn. 159)

'As to the Nature and Order of the Building,
the Walls are of Brick rendered over, but the
Coins are Stone, Rustic Work, their Roof within
is flat, painted of the Ionic Order, but somewhat
decay'd. It is covered with Pantiles, which together with the Gable end extends (the former
like a large Barge-Course) several Foot Ed from
the E. end of the upright Walls of the Church,
and is supported with strong Stone Columns of
the Tuscan Order, constituting a Piazza, where
the Poll is often taken for Parliament Men for the
City and Liberty of Westminster, accounted the
greatest in England. The Church has 3 Iles, and
is paved with Stone, and there are handsom Windows of the Tuscan Order; but tho' the Church
is broad, there are no Pillars that support the Roof.

'As to its Ornament and Finishing, it's Wainscotted (about the Chancel) 8 Foot high with Deal,
and Pewed with Oak; the Galleries extend on the
S. W. N. and E. sides of the Church, which last
very much obstructs the view of the new AltarPiece, which is adorned with 8 fluted Columns
painted, in imitation of Prophiery of the Corinthian Order, and an Entablature painted white
and vein'd: the Intercolumns are the Commandments done in black Characters on white, under a
Glory, environ'd with painted Cherubims within
an Alcove, and these betn 2 Seraphins carved:
Above all which, is an Arch, with the Queen's
Arms on the Key-Piece, betn 2 handsom Vases,
and all under a painted Festoons-Curtain extending on part of the Roof, so as supposed to let fall
before the whole. Two handsom Figures,
design'd (I suppose) for Pourtraits of Apostles, are
in the Windows at the E. end standing on Pedestals, well painted on the Glass, with these
Characters, Edward Parr, 1695; and the Window
on the N. side of the Chancel, is adorned with
other Devices painted also on the Glass; and near
this a spacious Picture of Char. I. with Angels
adorned with twisted Columns, etc. and the
Jambs of the Windows in the Chancel are also
imbellish'd with painted Cherubims, IncensePots, Leaves, etc. And opposite to the said Picture and Window on the N. side, is a Triumphal
Arch; on the S. side of the Chancel, whereon is
placed the Queens Arms carved, gilt and depicted.
At the W. end of the Church within, is a Dial,
and another without at the E. end of the Church,
with this Motto,

Ex hoc Momento pendat Eternitas.
'Le. of the Church is 99 Foot, Breadth 48,
Altitude about 38, but no Tower, nor Bells to
ring in Peal.'

The roof continued to give trouble and in May
1714 it was surveyed by the carpenters Thomas
Rathbone and Robert Jeffes (in lieu of Nicholas
Launce). They recommended repairs estimated
to cost some £388, and other work on the railings
at the west end of the church estimated at either
£234 or £541 (according to the specifications
adopted). The alterations were carried out in
1714–15. The largest payment was to the
carpenter, Thomas Barlow, whose bill amounted
to between £500 and £600, and included charges
for flooring-over the ceiling (£125) and for providing and working 533 cubic feet of yellow
deal in the roof (£80). He also put up a pole for
the 'Union Flag' which the parish bought in
September 1714 to celebrate the accession of
George I and which adds a touch of bravura to
Nebot's view of the Piazza in 1735 (Plate 28a).
The cost of all the work finally rose to c. £1,648,
and payment, by a church rate, occasioned some
difficulty and an appeal to the Duchess of Bedford
for assistance. (fn. 168)(fn. 28)

The date 1715 is shown on the clock-case in
the eastern pediment in the 1717 volume of
Vitruvius Britannicus, and perhaps indicates that
the inscription recorded by Hatton was changed to
the Sic transit gloria mundi shown in Hogarth's
Morning, published in 1738 (Plate 30a). Campbell shows a clock-case that seems generally
similar to those depicted in the mid seventeenthcentury views. A wide panelled pedestal extended
beyond and below the square face framing the dial,
which had scrolls at each side and was surmounted
by a swan-necked pediment flanking a figure,
perhaps symbolizing Time.

Within the church, the decayed condition of
the ceiling-painting was remarked on in Strype's
Survey of 1720, (fn. 169) although Vertue, writing
about the same time, discovered 'many admirable
Partes of a good Pencil'. (fn. 170) Strype tells us that the
galleries were hung with tapestry.

In that year, 1720, the vestry decided to buy an
organ, by voluntary subscription, and that 'any
Inhabitant. . . may Apply to any of their Friends
who are Organ Makers to bring in Proposalls'.
Tenders were received from five organ-builders,
(John) Knoppell, Mr. Harris (presumably one of
the sons of Renatus, senior), Mr. Gerard Smith,
Mr. Christian Smith (presumably nephews of
Father Schmidt), and (Christopher) Schrider.
Selection was to be by the majority vote of subscribers, who had one vote for each guinea contributed. (fn. 171) However, objection was made to
some of the tenders (fn. 172) and the matter lapsed until
1726 when an organ (15 by 16 feet on plan)
and two small galleries for the charity-school
children were erected at the west end. (fn. 173) The
organ was the work of the English organ-builder,
Abraham Jordan. (fn. 163) The first organist was John
Travers who was elected in November 1726 on
the recommendation of the third Duke of Bedford
'and severall other Persons of distinction'. His
salary was £30 per annum. (fn. 174)

By the 1720's Jones's architecture was no
longer merely respected but revered as a vivifying
source of inspiration by the neo-Palladians of Lord
Burlington's circle. They rarely emulated the
compact forcefulness of Covent Garden church,
but its prestige in their eyes was demonstrated in
1727. The Weekly Journal reported in April of
that year: 'The Right Honourable the Earl of
Burlington out of Regard to the Memory of the
celebrated Inigo Jones, and to prevent our
Countrymen being exposed for their Ignorance,
has very generously been at the Expence of three
or four hundred Pounds to restore the Portico
of Covent-Garden Church, now one of the finest
in the World, to its primitive Form; 'tis said, it
once cost the Inhabitants about twice as much to
spoil it.' (fn. 175) The vestry minutes are entirely
silent on this restoration, but in June the churchwardens twice waited on Lord Burlington 'about
the alteration to be done at the Church'. (fn. 176) This
suggests further work than that reported in April,
but there seems to be no clue to what was
done. (fn. 30)

In the years 1732–4 further repairs were
carried out, under the bricklayer, Joseph James,
probably costing some £612 in all. This included
a small sum spent on the renewal of the painted
glass over the altar by a Mr. Price, perhaps the
glass-painter William Price, junior. (fn. 177)

The cross-section of the portico and roof
published by Batty Langley in 1736, but surveyed in or before 1734, shows that strengthening
timbers had by then been added to the original
roof-structure. They had perhaps been inserted
after 1717, as they are not shown in volume 11 of
Vitruvius Britannicus (Plates 13b, 14a). (fn. 31)

In 1744 Daniel Grignon was paid £30 'for
making a new Time peice to the East End of the
Church and Repairing the old Clock'. (fn. 136) Later
representations of the Piazza show that the old
form of clock-case in the pediment depicted in
early views (and in Hogarth's Morning of 1738),
was retained. Daniel Grignon's clock was subsequently replaced by another provided at an
unknown date by Thomas Grignon, who
succeeded Daniel about 1760 and died in 1784:
this had a plain round dial. (fn. 180)(fn. 32)

In 1746 some £910 was spent on repairs to the
church, under a supervising surveyor, Mr.
Saunders or Saunderson (who was paid £15 15s.
and was possibly the John Sanderson employed
elsewhere by the fourth Duke). New windows
were provided, for which the glazier and
smith gave in 'Skeems'. New deal doors were
fitted at the west end, and new oak posts set up
outside the east end. (fn. 182) Sandby's view of the west
end shows the date 1746 on the clock on the bell
turret (Plate 15a). (fn. 33)

For the next forty years or so there is little
record of alterations to the church, although repairs continued to be made. In 1756 the fine
Queen Anne altarpiece was found to be 'out of an
upright' because its foundations were 'greatly
sunk'. The opportunity was therefore taken to
make a brick burial vault beneath it 'capable' (as
the rector wrote to the Duke) 'of containing 100
Bodies, which, at 10£ apiece, will in the course of
some years bring in 1000£ to the Parish'. The
work cost some £1,250. (fn. 183)(fn. 34); In 1760 a surveyor,
Phillips, was paid £3 3s. (fn. 136) The organ was repaired by 'Mr [William] Bailey Send & Co.' in
1763. (fn. 184) A pair of brass chandeliers, provided by
the Duke of Bedford, was hung up in 1766. (fn. 185)
In 1770 a newspaper reported: 'The elegant
Portico of Covent Garden is now render'd
visible, the Pillars being painted white, and the
Pediment (with all the rest) of a Royal Yellow'. (fn. 186)

In 1778 a vestry office was made in the original belfry, which had been vacated by the charity
school, (fn. 187) and an additional vestry room made
in 1786 for which the surveyor, Joseph Cantwell, was paid £5 5s. (fn. 188)

A drawing by J. W. Hiort of about this period
(Plate 14b) shows that a gradual but important
change was taking place in the appearance of the
church. The level of the Piazza was gradually
being raised, and only four steps appear at the
east end where originally there were probably six
or seven. (fn. 189)(fn. 35)
In 1823 Britton and Pugin were to
show only two, a drawing of 1876 only one, and
a drawing of 1887 none (Plates 16, 18b, 18c). (fn. 191)

By the 1780's it was becoming necessary to
spend considerable sums yearly on repairs, (fn. 192) and
finally a thorough renovation was determined
upon. The decision was reached in March 1787,
when a preliminary estimate of the cost was
£2,610. The undertaking was to be conditional
on the receipt of a contribution from the fifth
Duke. (fn. 193) This was forthcoming, to the amount
of £500, and in February 1788 the architect
Thomas Hardwick was asked to make a more
detailed estimate. (fn. 194) In March a committee was
appointed by the vestry, (fn. 195) and in April, after
other estimates had been received from Joseph
Cantwell (at £3,255) and 'Brettingham' (at
£3,050), Hardwick was chosen to direct the
alterations. (fn. 196) A bishop's faculty was granted in
May. (fn. 197) An Act of Parliament was obtained in
June, authorizing a body of trustees to carry on
the work and raise the necessary funds by the sale
of annuities on the security of a church rate. (fn. 198)

The sum authorized was £6,000, for by this
time the scope of the work had been enlarged.
Important changes were made to the exterior.
On the roof, the pantiles and dormer windows
were replaced by uninterrupted Westmorland
slates. The walls, in order 'to prevent the great
inconvenience and frequent expence of repairing
the stucco', were cased in Portland stone. (fn. 199) The
gallery-access staircases on the north and south
sides were taken away. In the portico the iron
railings and lamp-irons were removed and placed
at the foot of the steps. (fn. 36)

Inside, the old ceiling was replaced by one of
floated plaster with a plain block cornice. A
screen was made at the west end, and the north
and south galleries extended to meet the east wall.
A new pulpit and reader's desk was provided,
together with new pews (those in the galleries
being of painted deal). The old altarpiece was
retained, with new gilding, and veining to imitate
Siena marble. The former brass chandeliers,
branches and candlesticks were also retained. (fn. 200)
The Act of Parliament provided that henceforward no alterations should be made to the
appearance of the pews by their owners, under a
penalty of £100. On the completion of the work
the trustees recommended to the vestry that no
inscriptions should be placed on the gallery
fronts. (fn. 201)

In the churchyard, new iron gates were set up
at the Bedford Street entrance. The bishop's
faculty provided that the two eastern gates out of
the Piazza, hitherto of plastered brick, were to be
rebuilt or refaced in stone up to the level of the
pediments: it was later said that at this time 'a more
decided form' was 'given to the profiles'. (fn. 202)(fn. 37)

By April 1789 it was known that the cost
would be much greater than expected. (fn. 196) One
reason was that the roof had (again) been found to
be defective: later, when the church was reopened,
it was said that it had been 'entirely new roofed',
as well as slated. (fn. 203) Another reason was that the
window architraves had been found to be of
stucco, not stone. This is difficult to explain, as
the original building accounts had contained substantial payments to the mason for these items.
In June 1789 a second Act of Parliament authorized the raising of a further £4,000 for the
additional work. (fn. 204)

In the end, the expenditure on the main workmen's bills amounted to about £9,340, (fn. 38) on other
workmen or tradesmen £804, (fn. 39); on legal and clerical expenses £699, and on surveyors' fees £563.
Of this last item, Hardwick was paid £521 17s.,
at 5 per cent of the building costs. The clerk of
works, William Chipchase, was paid a guinea a
week. Including some miscellaneous expenses of
£317 the total cost was about £11,723. (fn. 196)(fn. 40)

A newspaper of the time commented that
complete rebuilding would probably not have
been much more expensive, but no one in the
parish was 'so deficient in understanding as to
propose rebuilding a church, which for a century
and an half has been the admiration of scientifick
men, from all quarters of the globe'. The 'elegant
simplicity' of the interior was praised, and the
quality of the workmanship. (fn. 203) Whatever the
excellence of the joinery and ironwork, however,
the masonry, as will be seen, was probably defective.

The church was reopened on 1 November
1789. (fn. 203) In November of the previous year the
trustees had insured it, for one year, to the value
of £10,000, and recommended the churchwardens to continue this precaution. (fn. 206) They
did not do so. (fn. 207)

Some six years later plumbers were carrying
out trifling work on the bell-turret. At their
midday break, on 17 September 1795, they left a
fire unguarded, and from this a conflagration
spread that rapidly gutted the church. Only the
walls, portico and south-west wing remained.
Thus the vestry was confronted with the nearly
complete destruction of 'that beautiful Edifice,
which was once the pride of this Parish, and the
admiration of Strangers'. (fn. 208)

Apart from an abortive attempt to prosecute
the plumbers, the vestry's first thought was to discover if the parts still standing could be retained
in the rebuilding. Hardwick and four others,
Joseph Cantwell, Goodall, (Richard) Jupp, and
Little, were invited to report. (fn. 208)(fn. 41) They were
unable to make up their mind about the walls and
asked for the help of (C. A.) Craig, George
Dance and Richard Holland (or Mr. Hobson of
Horslevdown). (fn. 209) In October Hardwick told the
vestry that he, Cantwell, Dance, Goodall, Jupp,
Hobson and Holland (who were paid five guineas
each (fn. 196)) had examined the remains, and all but
Cantwell and Goodall had signed a report. This
was to the effect that the walls had suffered little
injury and would serve in the rebuilding, although
the stone facing would need some repair. On the
other hand, the 'Columns of the Portico and what
they support have received such material injury
that they ought to be taken down'. (fn. 210)

The vestry communicated its hope of rebuilding the church 'on its original foundation
and Plan' to the Duke of Bedford, professing that
'habits derived from many former obligations
conferred' impelled them to ask for his advice
and support. They thought the cost would be 'at
least £12,000', which was to prove a better
estimate than most such. (fn. 210)

In the same month of October Hardwick was
appointed surveyor to the parish, and produced an
estimate of £10,300, plus the cost of a new organ,
furnishings, and surveyor's fees. The vestry
decided to accept the additional expense of oak
rather than deal pews, but to dispense with a
cupola on the roof and to house the bells in turrets
on the north and south wings of the church. (fn. 211)

The need for such an expensive undertaking,
in wartime and so soon after the outlay of 1788–9,
obviously posed great problems, and the parish
authorities went so far as to obtain an interview
with the Prime Minister, Pitt, to ask for governmental assistance. The rector had to report to the
vestry, however, in February 1796, that Pitt
would not create such a precedent. (fn. 212) The vestry
decided to apply for a brief to raise contributions, (fn. 212) but this was not done (fn. 213) and the chief
source of funds was that employed in 1788, the
sale of annuities on the security of a parochial rate.
An Act of Parliament in April 1796 authorized a
body of trustees to raise up to £18,000 by this
means, and to levy a rate at not more than 1s. in
the £. (fn. 214) It is not known how far the Duke of
Bedford contributed to the expenses. (fn. 42)

On 29 April the trustees accepted Hardwick's
plan of the previous October. In the following
month it was evidently decided to reverse the
decision not to build a cupola on the body of the
church. Few details of the progress of the work
are known, but the church was completed for
reconsecration on 1 August 1798. (fn. 216)

Apart from the cupola of Hardwick's designing,
the main external lines of Jones's church were
faithfully preserved (Plate 18a). Whether Jones's
columns were re-erected in the portico is uncertain. The mason's bill was for £1,933 9s. 10d., (fn. 217)
but as it is not known how much work was
necessary on the masonry of the walls, or whether
the cupola was of stone or (more probably) wood,
it is not possible to decide whether he supplied
new columns. Either at this time or during the
alterations of 1788–9 architraves were substituted for the rusticated surrounds of the side
doors into the church from the portico.

Hardwick's bell-turret, a simple neo-classical
version of its predecessor, was probably constructed
of timber though apparently finished to resemble
stone. A plain pedestal, stepped back near the top
and finished with a bold cavetto, supported the
belfry stage where each face contained a plain
round-arched opening, framing a louvred grille
below a clock dial. A Doric pilaster projected
from each splayed angle to support an entablatureblock of which the cornice alone was continued
across each face, below a plain blocking-course.
A hemispherical dome of lead rose from the
moulded top of a low drum, and was surmounted
by a ball-finial and weather-vane.

It seems that after the repairs the masonry of
the walls was left in a faulty condition, which may
indeed have dated from the original ashlaring of
1788–9. When this stone facing was removed in
1888 it was stated by A. J. Pilkington, the architect for the alterations, that it was, on average,
only 2½ to 3 inches thick, and fastened to the
brickwork by iron cramps. The old brick facing
was roughly cut away to an average depth of 7 in.,
and the space between it and the ashlar filled with
chalk, lime, brick and stone chippings, thrown in
carelessly. The bond stones were few in number
and useless as bond, the stone ashlar depending
entirely on the iron cramps….' Pilkington
thought the ashlar dated from 'about thirty years
after the completion of the church by Inigo
Jones in 1641'. (fn. 218) It must, however, have been
Hardwick's masonry, and would seem to bring
some discredit on him as architect and (possibly)
on his fellow-signatories to the report of October
1795.

The new clock and bells in the cupola were
provided by Thomas Grignon, the younger, of
Russell Street, a member of the local family of
clockmakers. He was paid some £261 for them. (fn. 219)
For the next twenty years the pediment at the
east end of the church was without a clock. The
eastern weather-vane was also not replaced.

In the new roof Hardwick adopted a quite
different and superior construction to Jones's
(unless, as is possible, he had already made the
change in 1788). The form chosen was essentially that anticipated in the 1730's by Francis
Price in The British Carpenter. (fn. 43)

The interior was virtually all of Hardwick's
design, including the furnishings and fittings.
Some of the furniture was of great refinement. (fn. 223)
The austerity of effect was deliberate, and the
rebuilding Act strengthened the earlier provision
against the alteration of the pews by prohibiting
any alteration not authorized by a majority of the
vestry. The three-decker pulpit was placed centrally in front of the new reredos, which blocked
Jones's central round window (fn. 224) (Plates 16, 17b).

The choice of organ-builder was referred by
the vestry to the joint organists of the parish, and
J. W. Callcott recommended either John Avery
or William Gray. (fn. 225) The latter was chosen, and
subsequently retained to tune the organ at 8
guineas per annum. (fn. 44) The total cost of the instrument, for which Hardwick designed the case, was
£577 10s. It was tried and approved by Doctor
Burney before the consecration. (fn. 227)

The main workmen's bills amounted to some
£10,105. (fn. 45) Other workmen's and tradesmen's
bills amounted to about £812. (fn. 46); Legal and clerical
expenses were about £505, and other sundry
expenses, including the wages of the clerk of
works, Thomas Wilkinson, about £400. Surveyors' fees totalled £636 15s., of which £600
was paid to Hardwick. His remuneration included
a gratuity of £55 13s. With the bills for the clock
and organ the total cost was thus some £13,297. (fn. 230)

Figure 6:

St. Paul's Church, plan

Figure 7:

St. Paul's Church, ceiling plan

Figure 8:

St. Paul's Church, east and west elevations

Figure 9:

St. Paul's Church, sections

Figure 10:

St. Paul's Church, north elevation

Figure 11:

St. Paul's Church, long section looking south

The cost of the rebuilding had been increased
by the wartime shortage of timber. The payment
to the chief workman, the carpenter Thomas
Wapshott, included a gratuity of £800 in consideration of his loss, under his contract, from the
rapid rise in prices. All the bills were, however,
discharged promptly, and the last had been paid
by May 1799. (fn. 230)

Hardwick's interior is shown, before any important changes had been made to it, in the drawing reproduced on Plate 17b, and was described by
Thomas Allen in 1828:

'The interior is very plain and has a quakerlike appearance; it produces therefore disappointment when contrasted with the simple grandeur
of the outside; the ceiling is horizontal, and rests
on a block cornice which forms the finish to the
side walls; it is pannelled by mouldings of no very
great projection, into circles and other figures; in
a large circle which forms the centre is the
Hebrew name of the Deity in a glory and clouds.
A gallery of oak, sustained on fluted Doric
columns of the same, occupies the east [sic for
south], west and north walls; in the western
portion is the organ, which is more properly ornamented than any other part of the church. The
altar screen placed against the centre of the eastern
wall consists of a stylobate sustaining four pilasters
of the Corinthian order surmounted by an entablature and pediment; in the intervals the usual
inscriptions, with the sacramental cup, and other
subjects in relief. On the raking cornice of the
pediment, an urn and pedestal, with an angel
reclining on each side; the sculptor was the late
Thomas Banks, R.A.

'The pulpit and desks are placed in one group
in front of the altar rails. The font is situated
in a pew on the south side of the church; it is a
small basin of white marble on a shaft of red.' (fn. 231)

The attribution of the carved work on the
reredos to the 'classic chisel' of Hardwick's friend,
Banks, was also made by Britton and Pugin in
1825, (fn. 232) but the only payment for carving the
reredos of which there is record was some £255 to
James Tayler. (fn. 217)

In 1804 Hardwick was officially appointed surveyor to the parish at a salary of 10 guineas a
year, and so continued until his death in 1829. (fn. 233)
He was succeeded, at the same salary, by T.
Stead, until the post was discontinued in 1833. (fn. 234)

For seventy years or so after the rebuilding
there is little record of important changes. (fn. 47) There
were, however, repairs or embellishments in 1814,
1824, 1831 and at other times. (fn. 235) The lighting
of the church by gas was considered in 1818, and
adopted in 1824. (fn. 236) In 1817 a clock had once
more been placed in the eastern pediment of the
church, by Thomas Grignon the younger, (fn. 237)
and in 1835 this was illuminated at the expense of
the sixth Duke of Bedford, to whose tenants in
the market it was chiefly beneficial. (fn. 238)

In 1851–2 some repairs costing about £614
were carried out by the builders Mansfield and
Sons under the direction of the architect William
Grellier, (fn. 239) and in 1858 the seventh Duke contributed £10 towards the restoration of the
altar. (fn. 240)

By 1861 the organist could 'get through' the
Sunday services only with difficulty owing to the
'tottering state of the Mechanism'. In that year
the Duke paid for a three-manual instrument by
Henry Bevington, which incorporated part of the
case, and possibly other pieces, of the Gray
organ. (fn. 241)

Important alterations, authorized by a bishop's
faculty of 20 September 1871, were carried out to
the designs of William Butterfield in 1871–2. (fn. 242)
By that time the exterior gave an impression of
neglect, but the alterations were almost all to the
interior. The church was reopened on 23 June
1872. The changes were described by The
Guardian, which noted that 'in accordance with
the requirements of the feelings of our day' a
'really church-like appearance' had been given to
an interior which had been 'gloomy and unattractive'. The Guardian praised the special
provision of seating for children, and the increased
frequency of divine service that marked the
reopening.

Butterfield converted the old pews into open
(and uncomfortable) seats, and removed the side
galleries: the accommodation was thus reduced
from 832 to 528. The west gallery had perforce
to remain, for want of funds to demolish it, but
the organ was moved to the north-east corner of
the church. The pulpit was also moved, a new
reader's desk provided, and the present font installed at the west end. (fn. 243) The walls were partly
decorated with pilasters and arches in colour,
'suggestive of a marble and stone treatment,
whenever it can be afforded', but this decoration
had to be left incomplete. Most of the wall
monuments were removed. The ceiling was
painted 'in bright tints'. The present flooring,
with a decorative treatment in tile and marble,
was laid down at the east end, where the level of
the chancel was raised to its present height and in
consequence the two east doors into the church
from the portico were bricked up. Among the
old fittings re-used were some of the gallerycolumns, which were placed north and south of
the communion table, to give the effect of a
sanctuary. Hardwick's reredos was altered and
raised so that (like that of c. 1704) it embraced
the circular east window, which was reopened and
filled with 'bright and effective' stained glass.
The creed, commandments and Lord's prayer in
the reredos were replaced by 'large outline cartoons, slightly tinted, representing the Ascension
of our Lord'. It was probably during these
alterations that the easternmost side windows
were blocked internally. (fn. 242)

The removal of the galleries made the interior
(despite the retention of Hardwick's western
screen) much closer to what it had been in 1638.
In other respects, however, Butterfield's changes
were inevitably very unsympathetic to Jones's
style, and the raising of the east end was itself
harmful to the original proportions.

The eighth Duke of Bedford had declined to
contribute to the cost of these alterations, which
were paid for by private subscriptions. (fn. 244) Only
three years after the reopening the Duke's
successor, the ninth Duke, effected the strongest
silent criticism of the work by beginning a long
and expensive series of further renovations, paid
for by him and his successors and designed (initially) by his architect, Henry Clutton. The
changes were evidently not based on a complete
knowledge of the history of the building, and were
much influenced by considerations of convenience
and practicability, but the restoration of Jones's
supposed original design was now very consciously
a motive of the work.

Clutton's first report on his proposals was made
to the Duke in September 1875, and they are
illustrated in drawings of May 1876. (fn. 245) The
interior he regarded, rightly, as having virtually
nothing of Jones in it. Hardwick's work he
thought 'the feeble expression of Italian art as
practiced at that period', which the 'very recent
modifications have not improved'. He proposed to
supply a Palladian ceiling, new wainscot, and a
new altarpiece, pulpit and other fittings. The
organ was to be moved back to a 'Tribune' at the
west end. Externally, Clutton proposed to restore
the church to the simple temple form which he
believed Jones had intended it to have. He
thought the wings were not Jones's work, and his
most important proposal was that they should be
removed entirely. He also judged the lateral
openings in the portico, whether Jones's work or
not, to be 'innovations on an ancient Tuscan
Portico', and felt free to propose that they should
be widened (but not heightened or otherwise
changed) to permit the diversion through the
portico of the footpath on the west side of the
market place. The easternmost side windows,
already blocked internally, were to be entirely
obliterated externally. No doubts seem to have
been felt about the propriety of the masonry
facing, and this was to be repaired. The west
front was to be improved by removing Hardwick's
bell-turret from the apex of the pediment and
hanging the bells in two small square apertures
formed in the pediment's tympanum. The
churchyard was to be lowered and the great west
doorway, furnished with handsome new doors,
was to be approached by a semi-circular flight of
steps in two stages each of four risers: Clutton
accepted, however, the impracticability of lowering the ground at the east end to restore the original height of the church in relation to the Piazza
(Plates 18b, 19a). These changes would have
brought the church, especially the side elevation,
to resemble very closely the 'Temple at Covent
garden' delineated by Hawksmoor (fig. 3 on
page 66).

The eastern gateways into the churchyard,
which Clutton did not regard as of Jones's
designing, were at first meant to be retained, but
without their pediments. Clutton's drawings of
May 1876 show, however, that by then he intended that the ground level of the churchyard
should be lowered some five feet, and the difference
between this and the existing level of the Piazza
reconciled by interposing two semi-basement
wings, each 20 feet wide, extending north and
south from the east end of the church. The
north range was to comprise a heating chamber
and fuel store, and the south was to contain a
men's lavatory, most handsomely designed with
two cross-vaulted aisles divided by a range of
Tuscan columns. Both wings were to have
terrace roofs, and to be lit and ventilated by a
series of lunette openings in the wall of rusticated
stonework facing the churchyard. The terraces
were to be enclosed by high iron railings on the
Piazza side, and by stone balustrades on the churchyard side. The public urinal which had adjoined
the south churchyard gateway since 1851 (fn. 246)
would thus have been made less offensively obtrusive. Great importance was also attached to
plans for making the churchyard more sanitary.

During the deliberations on the intended work
a suggestion emanated from the Bedford Office
for more drastic alterations, perhaps involving
the removal of the portico. Clutton's rebuttal of
this, in March 1877, contains an appraisal of
Jones's work:

'I believe, that Inigo Jones did, literally build a
Barn, but also did what his great Master Palladio
did before him—He constructed an imposing
Facade to screen a mean building in the rear. A
simple prolongation of the roof of this Barn, and
the insertion of two stone Columns and two anti
to support it, evolved the noble Tuscan portico of
St. Paul, Covent Garden. This was true genius.
To the Earl, however, it must be remembered a
portico could be of no use to the Church—but
Jones had another object for a portico besides a
screen, he wanted a central feature for the buildings & Piazza surrounding the great Square, and
the portico best typified the Temple in the Forum
of old.

'True to the principles of Vitruvius, Jones
constructed the trabii or lintols, over the Columns,
of wood. He possibly could not procure the large
oaken timbers recommended by that author, so
had recourse to what is called false construction,
that is, Jones used artificial means to produce the
effect he wanted. Surely if what he did has lasted
two centuries, critics of the present day may
reserve their censure. To me it is evident that
Jones throughout the work of this Church had
very scanty means at his disposal. To quote a sage
of antiquity—"He is the best Cobbler who can
make the strongest pair of Shoes out of the
least quantity of leather." I find this principle
strikingly exemplified in the Church in Covent
Garden.' (fn. 247)

Attached to Clutton's plea is a note (by the
Duke?): 'Let ye Portico bide where it is.'

A faculty for the work on the portico, churchyard and 'latrines' was obtained in July 1877, (fn. 248)
and between 1878 and 1882 part of Clutton's
programme was realized. (fn. 249) The work on the
churchyard was executed, although its level was
reduced less than had been intended in 1876, and
the latrines made. In the course of these alterations the eastern churchyard gateways were
removed. (fn. 48) Most of the proposed work affecting
the external appearance of the church was
carried out. The side arches into the portico were
enlarged more than had at first been intended, to
their present form (as is adumbrated in pencil on
Clutton's elevation of 1876). While the men's
lavatory on the south side was constructed, the
heating chamber on the north side was omitted,
much to the detriment of Clutton's original
scheme. At the west end four instead of eight
semi-circular steps were constructed. It proved
impossible to provide the vestry with acceptable
accommodation to replace that in the north and
south wings of the church, and these were therefore retained, although lowered. (fn. 250) It is uncertain whether any of the intended work on the
interior was executed.

Figures in the records of the Bedford estate
suggest that by 1882 some £6,239 had been spent
on the churchyard, some £4,954 on the latrines
and some £2,790 on the church itself. (fn. 251) The
builders were Messrs. Cubitt. (fn. 252)

In 1887 and the following year further important work was carried out by Holloway
Brothers, under the direction of the architect,
A. J. Pilkington, (fn. 253) evidently in substantial
continuation of Clutton's work (fn. 254)(fn. 49) (Plates
18c, 19b). A bishop's faculty was obtained in March
1888. (fn. 256) The most striking change was the
replacement of the exterior ashlar by the present
bright red brick. Pilkington's comments on the
poor quality of the previous stone facing have
already been noted (see page III). Butterfield's
seats (which were 'horizontal and the backs of
them perpendicular') had been found 'most inconvenient and uncomfortable', and new were
provided. The traditional altar inscriptions
removed by Butterfield were replaced. Clutton's
intention to restore the organ to the west end was
carried out. Pilkington also provided the present
ceiling, although it may be that he utilized the
design known to have been previously submitted
by Clutton. It was perhaps at this time that the
reredos was again altered and the round east
window once more concealed, although evidence
of this is wanting. The church was reopened on
27 May 1888. (fn. 257)

Figure 12:

St. Paul's Church, pulpit

The total cost of Pilkington's work seems to
have been some £4,224. The figure for the total
expenditure on the church and churchyard by the
ninth Duke (that is, mainly since 1875) was given
in an estate report in 1888 as £16,572. (fn. 258)

In 1904 C. Fitzroy Doll, architect of the Russell and Imperial hotels in Russell Square, and of
other buildings on the Bedford estate in Bloomsbury, prepared a scheme of interior decoration,
comprising 'the windows and mural paintings'. (fn. 50)
The eleventh Duke was, however, unwilling
to pay the estimated cost of upward of £1,875,
and the scheme was not executed. The rector
did, however, obtain sufficient subscriptions to
have a stained-glass window of St. Paul inserted in
c. 1910. (fn. 259)

The rectory of St. Paul was united with the
vicarage of St. Michael, Burleigh Street, in 1905,
when the latter church was demolished (fn. 260) (see
page 224).

After the 1914–18 war a memorial was made
on the east front of the north vestry wing,
incorporating a stone doorcase removed from the
south front of the south wing. (fn. 261)

In 1965 a limewood wreath carved by Grinling Gibbons, a parishioner of Covent Garden who
was buried here in 1721, was placed on the
screen as a memorial to him (fig. 14 on page 124).
It was presented by the Dean and Chapter of St.
Paul's cathedral. (fn. 262)

The Bevington organ was completely dismantled and restored, but not modernized, by
N. P. Mander, Limited, in 1967. (fn. 263)

The most noteworthy changes made to the
exterior by Clutton were the enlargement of the
side arches into the portico, the removal of
Hardwick's bell-turret, and the reduction in
height of the vestry wings. Whereas the original
portico arches were treated like the windows with
unbroken moulded architraves, the new arches
have very simply moulded archivolts rising from
architrave-profiled imposts above plain piers.
Each vestry wing was reduced in height by about
2 feet and finished with a plain frieze, moulded
cornice, and a plain blocking-course, partly concealing the low ogee-capped square lantern-light
rising from the flat roof. Pilkington's work on the
exterior was largely confined to replacing the
defective ashlar facing with red brickwork,
using a bond having three courses of stretchers
alternating with one of headers (Plate 18c).

Although there is virtually nothing of Jones's
work to be seen inside the church, the general
effect is now probably closer to his original
conception than at any time since the 1640's,
when the south gallery was allowed to spoil the
harmony of his finely proportioned interior
(Plate 22).

Above the low dado of oak panelling, and except for some unobtrusive memorial tablets, the
walls are quite plain and only a staff-bead is used
to dress the splayed reveals of the tall and roundarched window embrasures. The east wall alone
is now divided into three bays by pilaster-strips of
channel-jointed courses, with architrave caps.
Hardwick's altered reredos occupies the wide
middle bay and there is a tall window in each side
bay. A plain and narrow frieze-band projects
slightly to finish the walls, above which is the
boldly modelled cornice enriched with an eggand-dart moulding below the plain modillions
supporting the corona, and a beaded fillet below
the crowning cymatium. A plain margin surrounds the flat ceiling, where raised mouldings are
used to frame three large compartments, the
middle one almost a square and each end one an
oblong. Except for an egg-and-dart ovolo on the
inside, the outer frame is composed of plain
mouldings on either side of a heavy and broad
band of cross-ribboned oak garland, freely
modelled and undercut. The mouldings of these
outer frames are turned and lapped to enclose
small circular ventilators breaking the margins
between the three compartments. Within each
compartment is an inner frame enriched with a
beaded moulding.

Figure 13:

St. Paul's Church, altar rail

The important architectural furniture designed
by Hardwick has been largely retained, though
altered and sometimes used for purposes other
than those intended. His handsome reredos was
originally set at a lower level than at present, within a shallow round-arched recess. The inscribed
tablets have gone from the three intercolumniations, and the urn and flanking figures no
longer ornament the pediment, but the architectural framework remains (Plate 23b). Now
elevated on a high plinth, the tall pedestal is
divided vertically into three parts, all similarly
panelled, that at each end projecting below a
widely spaced pair of fluted Corinthian pilasters.
These support a simple but appropriate entablature, its dentilled cornice returned to frame a
triangular pediment. A copy of Botticelli's
Madonna del Magnificat now hangs in the middle
intercolumniation, and a gilt sunburst enriches the
pediment's tympanum. Six of the partly fluted
Doric columns that originally supported Hardwick's galleries have been re-used to form the
two-bay screens on either side of the sanctuary.
Raised on stepped bases above panelled dwarf
walls, the columns now support entablatures
crowned with urns. The communion-rail designed by Hardwick is of wrought iron and composed of a series of narrow vertical panels, each
containing an S-scroll enriched with leaves and
a small oval patera (fig. 13). The pulpit, now
placed to the north-west of the sanctuary, is
hexagonal in plan and rests on a short fluted
column of the same form. This supports the
cyma-profiled base, which is plain above a
horizontal moulding and carved below with formal acanthus leaves. The front of the pulpit is
treated as a pedestal, having a plinth richly carved
with leaves, swagged garlands, and cherubheads, above a band of fluting. Above the plinth
each face is formed with a large raised-and-fielded
panel, one enriched with the symbol of the
Trinity, the others with an oval motif formed of
a winged cherub-head, and the top rail is formed
as a cornice (fig. 12). All the woodwork is of
polished oak, discreetly enriched with gilding.

On the evidence of Britton and Pugin's engraved plan (Plate 16) it must appear that the
present west gallery is not that originally constructed by Hardwick, although it incorporates
much of his decorative material. Four of his
partly fluted Doric columns are equally spaced to
support the gallery front, which is dressed with an
entablature below a pedestal divided by plain dies
into five bays, each with three oblong panels. In
the middle panel of the central bay is a clock dial,
and the middle panel of each flanking bay is
decorated with the Royal Arms. In the centre of
the gallery rises the fine organ case, its console
set in a panelled chest below the exposed pipes
which are arranged in five groups. The middle
group is set in a frame with a carved valance
below a triangular pediment, and each end group
is treated as a 'tower'. Below the gallery is a
screen formed with partly panelled and partly
glazed partitions and doors extending between
Doric pilasters, corresponding with the columns
supporting the gallery front. This screen divides
the west end of the church to form a lobby, having
a gallery staircase on either side of the great west
door, and at each end a door leading to a vestry.
The church is now furnished with panelled oak
benches arranged in four blocks, served by three
aisles, and there are two ranges of choir stalls
flanking the space in front of the sanctuary.

Figure 14:

St. Paul's Church, carved wreath by Grinling
Gibbons, until recently in St. Paul's Cathedral

Churchyard

In the fourth Earl of Bedford's act of donation
on the day before the consecration of the church,
26 September 1638, the area of the churchyard
and of the three entrance passages from Bedford
Street, Henrietta Street and King Street were
stated approximately as they have subsequently
remained. (fn. 264)

The building accounts say little of the churchyard, beyond its planting with hayseed. The pair of
much admired eastern gateways out of the
Piazza are mentioned, set in brick walls. (fn. 265) It is
not known when this wall, which seems to
survive in Sutton Nicholls's view of c. 1717–28,
was replaced by the dwarf wall and iron railings
shown in mid eighteenth-century views of the
Piazza. Possibly the good decorative ironwork
gates of early eighteenth-century character were
provided for these gateways in 1714–15 (see
page 107, n.): originally, like the other gateways
into the churchyard, the eastern entrances were
furnished with wooden doors. (fn. 266) Iron gates of
the same character still survive in the southern
and northern entrances out of Henrietta Street
and King Street (Plates24, 25). In c. 1730 these
southern and northern entrances were rebuilt. (fn. 267)

In Bedford Street Kip's view of c. 1718–22
seems to show gates of iron rails, hung between
ball-topped piers set in a wall. New iron
gates were provided in 1788 (fn. 268) and again in
1880. (fn. 269)

Within the churchyard, wooden posts and rails
were provided in 1677–9, two of the posts being
surmounted by carved figures. (fn. 136) The wooden
rails were renewed in 1714 (fn. 270) and 1740 (at the
latter date at least, in oak). (fn. 271) In 1770 they were
replaced by iron railings. (fn. 272)(fn. 52)

Hollar's mid seventeenth-century view (Plate 1)
shows no trees in the churchyard. By 1680 a
vine required pruning, (fn. 136) and by 1690 trees had
been planted. (fn. 274) Strype describes the churchyard
in 1720: 'Coming out of Bedford street is a very
handsome Walk, with a Freestone Pavement, and
Pallisado Pales on each side, leading into the
Church, through the Midst of the Church-yard.
The like Walk is out of Henrietta-street, and
King's-street, with Rows of Trees; which, when
grown to Maturity, will be very ornamental.' (fn. 169)
In 1732 limes were planted, and other limes and
elms in 1740 and 1759. (fn. 136)

From an early period the vestry was concerned
at the nuisance and insecurity threatened by the
proximity of the churchyard to the backs of the
houses in the surrounding streets (Plate 17a).
In 1685 all doors made without leave were
ordered to be shut up. (fn. 275) Subsequently, licences
were sometimes sold for making windows on to
the churchyard, (fn. 276) but the first recorded licence
for a house-door to be made was in 1732. (fn. 277)

By 1755 the vestry was becoming concerned
also at the rise in level of the churchyard, which
it was inclined to attribute to the burial of large
numbers of non-parishioners. (fn. 278) Until the consecration of a burial-ground at the workhouse in St.
Pancras in 1790 (fn. 279) the churchyard was also filled
'with the remains of multitudes of Paupers'. (fn. 280)

In 1853 the churchyard was closed to burials, (fn. 281)
and in 1855 the tombstones were removed or laid
flat. (fn. 282)

Between 1878 and 1882, as part of the general
renovation of the church by Henry Clutton,
alterations were made to the churchyard by
Messrs. Cubitt, (fn. 252) under his direction. A bishop's
faculty was obtained in July 1877. (fn. 248) The
frontage to the Piazza south of the church was
set back, and the two Jonesian entrance gates
from the Piazza removed, to permit the construction of men's lavatories south of the church,
and cellars. (fn. 283)(fn. 53) (A proposal to re-erect the gates
at the King Street and Henrietta Street entrances
came to nothing.) (fn. 285) The ground west of the
church was lowered and levelled, (fn. 286) and for purposes both of security and sanitation the churchyard was set back from the adjacent houses. (fn. 287)
An area was excavated on the north, west and
south sides, to prevent the adjoining occupants'
getting into the churchyard 'and using the same for
various and improper purposes', (fn. 248) and to remedy
a 'soakage' from the graves into the houses. (fn. 288)
Some displaced bodies were put in a vault under
the church and the rest reinterred at Brookwood. (fn. 288) In 1877 it was intended to plant
poplars in the churchyard (fn. 285) but evidently this
was not done. The present iron gates into
Bedford Street probably date from this period. (fn. 289)

In the early twentieth century the churchyard
was evidently being cared for by gardeners employed by the Bedford estate, as in 1918 the
rector was informed they would no longer do so,
the estate being sold. (fn. 290)

In the same year plans were prepared by
P. Morley Horder for a war memorial hall north
of the church, but this was not built, perhaps
partly because it was found that burials had been
made there. (fn. 291)

The statue of Charles I

The equestrian statue of Charles I in brass
which now looks down Whitehall from Trafalgar
Square was during the Commonwealth to be
found in Covent Garden churchyard. Why this
was so is not entirely clear, although the early
history of the statue seems well established. It
had been made in 1633 for the Lord Treasurer,
Lord Weston (created in that year Earl of Portland) by Hubert Le Sueur, who was to be paid
£600 for it. (fn. 292) Doubt has been expressed whether
it ever stood, as was intended, in the garden of
Portland's house at Roehampton, but it is evident
that it did.

Portland died in 1635 and the next that is
known of the statue is in November 1644, when
the Roehampton estate was owned by Sir Thomas
Dawes, a 'delinquent'. His property had been
sequestrated and the House of Commons was
concerning itself with the sale of the statue. The
Commons' Journal does not say what was intended, (fn. 293) but in the following month the statue
was taken from Roehampton to Covent Garden.
Sir Thomas notes in his diary that this was done
'by order of the House of Commons' in the
person of 'Captaine Withers', who had come to
Roehampton in November to value it. (fn. 294) He
was Anthony Wither, a prominent resident in
Covent Garden, who paid about £150 for it, and
is said, convincingly enough, to have been acting
for two other Covent Garden residents, Edward
Carter (who was Surveyor in the Office of Works)
and Richard Harris, chapelwarden. All three
were among those nominated 'governors' of the
new parish in January 1645/6, and the purchase
had evidently been made on behalf of the
chapelry. (fn. 295) Why the statue was bought at such
a time is not known. (fn. 54)

In the course of 1645 Wither himself fell
under the suspicion of the Commons and in
January 1645/6 his estate was sequestrated. (fn. 297)
Perhaps in consequence of this, the vestry of
Covent Garden ordered in April that the statue
should be 'speedily sold' by Carter. (fn. 298) If anything was done, it was evidently no more than the
transference of the ownership to Carter personally.
Thus in 1650 the statue was still within the parish;
in fact, in the churchyard. In July of that year
the Council of State had ordered royal statues at
St. Paul's cathedral and the Exchange to be
thrown down or mutilated. (fn. 299) This, and the fact
of Wither's appeal against the sequestration of his
estate as a delinquent, seem to have drawn the
Council's attention to the statue in Covent
Garden. In October the Council ordered an
enquiry into its ownership (and that of Charles's
statue at Greenwich) (fn. 300) and in February 1650/1
the Commissioners for Sequestrations in Middlesex were required to investigate whether it
belonged to Wither. (fn. 301) Carter interposed his
claim to its ownership and in March the Commissioners decided in his favour. (fn. 302) No more is
known of any connexion of Carter with the
statue.

The only other (presumed) reference to the
statue before the Restoration is in 1655 when the
Council for an unknown reason again ordered an
investigation into 'the matter of Fact touching a
Statue in the Churchyard of Covent Garden'. (fn. 302)

In 1660 the second Earl of Portland discovered
the whereabouts of the statue, which by then was
in the possession of a brazier, John Rivett, and the
House of Lords interested itself in securing the
surrender of the statue to Portland. Between 1672
and 1675 Charles II bought it, for £1,600, from
the Countess of Portland, and it was set up at
Charing Cross. (fn. 292)

As early as 1684 Chamberlayne was writing
that during the Interregnum 'the Rebels' had sold
the statue for the price of the brass to an unnamed
brazier (said to be of Holborn), 'who preserved it
intire till his Majestie's happy Restauration'. (fn. 303)
In Vertue the story is given in more detail.
After noting that in Covent Garden churchyard
the statue was 'boarded up or enclosed', Vertue
says that on acquiring it the brazier, of Snow Hill,
took pains to seem to have broken it up, but
actually concealed it 'under ground' until the
Restoration. (fn. 304) This version was published by
Walpole, who gives the brazier's name as
Rivet. (fn. 305)(fn. 55)

Vertue adds that the statue had been 'cast and
wrought in a peice of ground near the Church of
Covent Garden'. (fn. 307) There appears to be no
other evidence of this, and some doubt is cast on it
by the fact that Vertue associates this statement
with another that is known to be erroneous, that
it had never been removed from Covent Garden
until it was sold to the brazier, whereas it certainly
came to Covent Garden from Roehampton. (fn. 56)

Round-House

Hollar's mid seventeenth-century aerial view
(Plate 1) shows a building in the south-east
corner of the churchyard, which is represented in
more detail in the undated drawing reproduced
on Plate 12b and in Sutton Nicholls's view of
c. 1717–28 (Plate 26). These depict a small, and
small-scaled, structure, in a very un-Jonesian
style. It was the parish round-house or watchhouse, and was probably built soon after the
creation of the parish in 1646: the first certain
reference to it in surviving records is in 1655. (fn. 308)
In 1733 the vestry decided to rebuild it, (fn. 309) and
mid eighteenth-century views show a very unpretentious building set back a little from the
Piazza frontage. The Act of 1788 for raising
funds to repair the church also empowered
trustees to demolish the watch-house and hire
another site, but this was not done. In 1829 the
Commissioners of Metropolitan Police announced
their intention to take over the use of the building, (fn. 310) but relinquished it in 1832 for the new
police station in Bow Street. (fn. 311) The watch-house
was demolished in the following year. (fn. 312)

School

A few weeks after St. Paul's was consecrated,
in November 1638, one Alexander Alexander
was admitted by the bishop's vicar-general to
teach in a grammar school within the chapelry. (fn. 313)
Nothing is known of this school, although in 1650
Anthony Wither, one of the 'governors' of the
parish, was claiming to have been instrumental in
obtaining a benefaction of £20 or £30 per annum
in land 'for a free schoole' for Covent Garden. (fn. 132)

In the 1670's the parish benefited from the
will, proved in August 1672, of William Shelton,
which provided, inter alia, for the education of
five children from St. Paul's at the school he had
established in Parker Street, St. Giles in the Fields.
Each scholar had a green coat provided by the
charity, and in 1679 the churchwardens of St.
Paul's were providing each with green breeches.
The parish seems to have continued to benefit
intermittently from this educational charity until
the mid nineteenth century. (fn. 314)

The St. Paul's charity school for boys was
established in 1702, (fn. 315) and that for girls in 1712. (fn. 316)
In 1701 the belfry-wing at the south-west end of
the church had been converted into a schoolroom, (fn. 161) and so remained for some three quarters
of a century: thirty boys were educated here.
The girls (twenty in number) seem to have had
no permanent schoolroom, accommodation being
provided by the schoolmistress. (fn. 317) In 1729–30 a
burial vault was made under the boys' schoolroom. (fn. 318) In 1775–8 the parish built a workhouse
in Cleveland Street, St. Pancras, and thither were
transferred the boys' school and the girls' school
(which had latterly been in Hart Street). (fn. 105) In
1779 the south-west wing of the church was
fitted up as the vestry clerk's office (fn. 319) and this or
similar use has continued thereafter. (For the
subsequent history of the schools see pages 61–
63).

The Rectory House

In 1637, before the church was consecrated,
a house on the west side of James Street (later
No. 27) had already been assigned by the fourth
Earl of Bedford for use as the minister's house. (fn. 320)
This arrangement was confirmed by the Privy
Council in April 1638, although in the absence
of legislation to make the precinct parochial the
house was not then permanently attached to the
living. (fn. 121) In 1637 the house was occupied by a
Mr. Robert Russell, (fn. 320) and from 1637 to 1641
the rates were paid by a William Russell, esquire.
In 1643 and 1644 no rates seem to have been
assessed on the house. (fn. 105) Probably this indicates
that in the two latter years the house was being
occupied by the minister, rate-free. Conceivably
this had been so from the time of the consecration
of the church in 1638, with the Russell family
making itself responsible for the rates.

The Parliamentary ordinance of 1646 by
which the precinct was made parochial designated
another house for the rector's residence. This was
on the north side of King Street (later No. 42).
It was to be occupied by the rector for the remaining twenty-five and a half years of a lease granted
by the fourth Earl to the previous occupant,
Maurice Aubert, Queen Henrietta Maria's 'chief
chirurgion', whose estate had been sequestrated.
Thereafter the rector was to revert to the James
Street house. In the meantime the latter house
was vested in the 'governors' of the new parish,
who were to let it and apply the rent to parochial
purposes. (fn. 321)

Thenceforward until the Restoration the King
Street house disappears from the ratebooks,
presumably because of its occupation rate-free by
the rector, and the James Street house was let by
the parish successively to Sir Henry Herbert,
sometime master of the revels (c. 1647–56), and
Edward Bleyden, a tailor (1657–65). (fn. 322)

The Parliamentary ordinance was invalidated
by the Restoration, and the Act of 1660 which
gave authority to the parochial status of Covent
Garden designated the James Street house as the
rectory house. (fn. 149) The part of James Street in
which the house was situated was no longer
possessed by the head of the Russell family, and it
was 1665 before the house was conveyed to the
fifth Earl, in trust for its use as the rectory house,
by John and Edward Russell. (fn. 323) From 1666
onwards the ratebooks indicate that it was held by
the rector rate-free until 1782 (with the exception
of periods of lay occupation in 1673–88 and
1724–32).

From 1784 onwards the rector (or his curate)
paid the parochial rates (except for a period of lay
occupation from 1790 to 1803). (fn. 105) By the early
nineteenth century, however, the growing business of the market was rendering James Street
unattractive and in 1813 the removal of the
rectory house to No. 7 Henrietta Street was being
envisaged. (fn. 324) The rector was not resident in
James Street after 1822, and the move to Henrietta Street was effected in 1832. (fn. 325) The deed of
exchange, between the rector and the sixth Duke
of Bedford, was made in the following year, with
the consent of the Bishop of London. (fn. 326)

Nothing is known of the appearance of No. 27
James Street during the period of its use as the
rectory house. It has since been rebuilt.

No. 7 Henrietta Street remained in use as the
rectory house until c. 1934. (fn. 327) It still survives
(see pages 233–5).

In 1905 the former vicarage house of St.
Michael's, Burleigh Street, at No. 14 in that
street, was taken over as the clergy house of St.
Paul's when St. Michael's was united with it
(see page 224). It is now the rectory house of
St. Paul's.

Footnotes

1. The unroofed walls were thatched to protect them during at least one winter.

2. In June 1632 the Painter Stainers' Company found three 'foreigners' painting 'Powles Church'.This has been taken
to refer to Covent Garden, but it is unlikely that the church would already have been known by its dedication-name, and
the reference is more probably to St. Paul's cathedral. The work is too early for Jones's alterations there but it may refer to
Sir Paul Pindar's refurnishing of the choir, the date of which is not known.
In January 1632/3 the Covent Garden church was mentioned among those 'not yet built',
presumably in the sense 'not
yet completed and consecrated'.

3. As Sir John Summerson has noted, the anecdote may have derived from Sir Richard Onslow, the Parliamentarian
(1601–1664). A friendly connexion between this Onslow and the Russells is perhaps implied by his support of the exemption of the fifth Earl's Covent Garden property from the financial penalties of a Parliamentary Bill in 1657.

4. Features suggestive of economy are the selective use of expensive Portland stone in the external masonry, and the division of the work on the pulpit-stairs between the carpenters and the joiner, whose finer work was employed only where 'seene
above the Pewes'. The distemper painting of the ceiling was probably cheaper than other forms of decorating so great an
area. For an unspecified reason the clerk of works' bill was 'retrenched by my lord'.

5. In Thomas Nabbes's play Covent Garden the remark that the new suburb is 'a goodly place' draws the comment 'And a
godly one too if rumour lie not' (Act 1, scene 1). The play was probably produced early in 1633, and the comment may
therefore refer to the feoffees' activities.

6. Clarendon's much later account of the Earl's standpoint in 1641 is well known. 'The earl of Bedford had no desire that
there should be any alteration in the government of the Church, and had always lived towards my lord of Canterbury
himself with all respect and reverence, and frequently visited and dined with him, subscribed liberally to the repair of St.
Paul's church [i.e. cathedral], and seconded all pious undertakings: though it is true he did not discountenance notoriously
those of the clergy who were unconformable.'
Laud's own words, however, in which he accuses the Earl of plotting
Stratford's death, seem to betoken a personal hostility.

7. An architectural description of the church as first built is given on pages 66–70.

8. Among the 'Inigo Jones' designs in Worcester College Library are a few which may bear some relationship to St.
Paul's, Covent Garden. They are, however, more likely to be later elaborations of the theme than alternative designs.

9. The position of the communion or chancel rails is not quite certain. The church building accounts make it clear that
there was only one set of rails, those included in the joiner's account as 'the Rayles and ballisters into the Chancell'.
In
the ironmonger's account, however, (where the hinges are mentioned) the rails are described as being 'before ye Communion
Table'.
The existence of entrance doors at the east end of the church is possibly an indication that the rails were returned
round the communion table rather than set across the width of the church at the chancel step. The use of the word 'chancel'
to denominate only the area immediately surrounding the communion table is unusual but similar usage seems to occur
at one other place in the accounts, where charge is made for the marble paving 'in the Chancell'.
The dimension of 264¼
[square] feet shows that only a small part of the whole area eastward of the chancel step (totalling about 1,780 square feet)
was paved, and probably the charge refers only to the raised floor under the communion table.

10. In Richard Brome's The Weeding of the Covent-Garden, a comedy probably staged in 1633, a country gentleman lodging
in the new buildings reprimands his Puritanical son: 'Come Sir, what do you gape and shake the head at there? I'll lay my
life he has spied the little Crosse upon the new Church yond, and is at defiance with it' (Act 1, scene 1).

11. The communion table cost £7 10s., the font £30, and the joiner's and carver's work on the pulpit and reader's desk
£101 8s. 1d. (plus £19 4s. for ironwork).

12. Vertue states that Jones's monument in St. Benet's, Paul's Wharf, bore a bas relief of the portico of St. Paul's, Covent
Garden, and of the west portico of St. Paul's cathedral.
Aubrey, however, gives the subjects as the Banqueting House
and the cathedral. This latter is the more probable pairing as they are the two works of Jones mentioned in his memorial
inscription.

13. Professor G. H. Turnbull, who published Hartlib's references to Kynaston in 1952, conjectured that Hartlib had misunderstood what he had been told and that Jones's work referred to here was at St. Paul's cathedral. There seems to be no
good reason for preferring this interpretation.
Hartlib's note is of interest in showing that John Webb already enjoyed some known status in association with Jones.

14. Carter also figures as a principal in the rather mysterious matter of King Charles's statue (see page 125).

16. Charley, Estbourne, George, Johnson, Knight, Mason and Styles worked on the portico houses built by the Earl
(see page 78). Charley, Ryder and Kellett had worked on additions to St. Martin in the Fields church in 1630–1, and
Tailor was to work on the organ-case there in 1637–8.

17. When some of the tiles were replaced by new 'Dutch' pantiles in 1701 the price had fallen to £5 per thousand.

18. This was possibly in September 1632, when it is known that the Earl was staying at Sherborne Castle with his new sonin-law, Lord Digby.

19. Harleian MS. 1831, part of which seems to have been compiled by a Middlesex Justice of the Peace to support his position in a dispute over the relative rights of magistrates and parish officers (see f. 35). It contains some matter taken from
the records of the Privy Council and the Bishop of London.

20. The consecration, like that (for example) of St. Catherine Cree in 1630,
is not entered in the Bishop of London's
register, and is known only from a version in Harleian MS. 1831.

21. The vestry minutes of the chapel and parish before 1681 are missing. The chapel and churchwardens' accounts are
also missing before 1656 and for the years 1658–60, 1662–5, 1688–9, 1694–7, 1699, 1705 and 1736.

22. Peter Nicholson's Architectural Dictionary of 1819 comments on the superiority of Hardwick's later roof over Jones's,
which, though of heavier construction, 'was very insufficient at the joggles, and had some of its timbers very ill disposed'.

23. In 1656 a mason, William Mathews, was paid £5 15s. 'for making the staires one the North side of the Portico'.

25. An inscription composed by the local clockmaker, Thomas Grignon, in 1798, and now hanging in the rector's vestry,
states that a clock in the bell-turret of the church 'was the first long pendulum clock in Europe, invented and made by
Richard Harris of London, A.D. 1641'. The authority for this statement is a manuscript note in a scientific work, made by
Grignon's father, Thomas, also a noted local clockmaker, who died in 1784.
On the strength of this, Richard Harris has been
thought possibly to have anticipated Vincenzio Galilei and Huygens in the application of the pendulum to the regulation
of a clock, c. 1649–57,
and he is still listed among English clockmakers.
The Grignons were familiar, through three
generations, with the clocks in St. Paul's, but it seems certain that the statement was founded in a misinterpretation of the
parish records. Richard Harris was the name of the chapelwarden who employed Nurce c. 1640–44.
He is usually designated 'gentleman', and although his career was chequered and various nothing has been found to suggest that it included
the making or designing of clocks.
The statement that the pendulum of the clock set up in 1641 was 'long' is even less likely to be true, as pendulumrods were short until the 1670's.
About 1685 St. Paul's did acquire a pendulum clock, from Thomas Tompion. He was paid £50, and another £15 was
paid to a carver, Lord, and a painter and gilder, Clothier.
Its position is not known, but it was perhaps the clock which
in 1698 was in the west gallery.
The Tompion clock survived the 1795 fire. It was repaired by Thomas Grignon in 1798
and given the long case in which it is now housed in the rector's vestry.

26. The rector's letter of 1756 already referred to states that the communion table was restored to the east end in 1678 but
this was probably a mistake for 1668.

27. Between October 1668 and April 1672 Abraham Harrison was paid £108 15s. 6d. for a gilt basin and three gilt flagons,
and Mr. Stayly £15 4s. for two gilt salvers:
(both were probably residents in Henrietta Street
). The church plate of St.
Paul's is illustrated in an article in Country Life, 7 June 1930, pp. 855–6, and in Royal Commission on Historical Monuments,
West London, 1925, plate .

29. As given in the 1719 churchwardens' accounts (which differ somewhat from other records) the workmen and their bills,
to the nearest £, were: bricklayer, John Prince (£178); carpenter, Thomas Barlow (£527); glazier, Francis Oakley (£22);
mason, Nicholas Abraham (£111); painter, Palme Stratfield (£166); plasterer, David Audsley (£145); plumber, Gray Sambach (£60); smiths, Richard Booth and Company 'for iron rails and work done at the porch and other places' (£310), and
John Reviss (£128).

30. It was in this year that Kent published his Designs of Inigo Jones, from drawings in Burlington's collection. The frontispiece includes a not very close version of the east front of the church, and a much altered variant of its plan. The youthful
Duke and Duchess of Bedford were subscribers to the work (in common with seventeen other dukes).

31. Langley says that after he had measured the portico Sir James Thornhill (who died in May 1734) 'did assure me, that Mr
[Nicholas] Stone was the Architect of that Building; but whether it was his own Design, or Mr Jones's, I will not undertake
to say . . .' The plates of the portico, roof and intercolumniation retain the attribution to Jones, although the text-captions
accept Thornhill's statement.
Sir John Summerson has pointed to the likelihood that Thornhill confused the mason at the
church, named Mason, with Stone.

32. The old form of case is shown in Maurer's engraving dated 1751 and in Samuel Scott's painting of c. 1754–8 (Frontispiece). The round case is shown in John Collett's painting of c. 1761–80 (Plate ) and in a Sandby watercolour of 1781.

35. It is said that the parish surveyor of pavements raised the level before the church and at the north-west corner of the
Piazza to make it easier for the aged James West, who lived at No. 43 King Street from 1758 until 1772, to get into his
carriage.

36. The railings, flush with the columns of the portico, had been in position by the time of Bowles's view of 1751. They
do not appear in Sutton Nicholls's view of c. 1717–28 (which shows decorative ironwork, perhaps of 1714–15, at the foot of
the steps and at the sides of the portico) (Plates , ).

37. Hiort's measured drawing of the east front of the church before the restoration of 1788 (Plate ) shows that the
eastern churchyard gateways had been divested of the moulded imposts shown on Plate , perhaps to accommodate the
wrought-iron gates that had replaced the original wooden doors (see page 124).

40. Compare with the sum of about £5,000 spent by the Church Building Commissioners on the erection of St. Michael's,
Burleigh Street, in 1831–3 (see page 223).

41. Little (perhaps Charles Little) declined 'to meet the other Gentlemen. . . on account of there being more than 3
in Number'.

42. It is perhaps worth noting that in November 1795 the Duke, after he had been asked to contribute to the cost of rebuilding, and before the parish's unsuccessful application to the Prime Minister, made his first recorded request that the
parish should publicly support him in party politics. The Duke, a friend and adherent of Fox, wished the parish to subscribe to a petition against Pitt's treason and sedition bills, then before Parliament: to this the vestry agreed.

43. Price gives the cross-section of 'a Roof whose Span is beyond the Walls; such as Covent-Garden, and Horsley-Down
Churches'.
Presumably this does not necessarily imply that it was in fact the form of the Covent Garden roof at that time,
and Campbell's and Langley's plates,
together with the negative evidence of the parish records, seem to show that Jones's
roof was not wholly reconstructed before Hardwick was employed. Peter Nicholson in 1819 and J. B. Papworth in 1825
both dated the new roof-construction from the post-fire rebuilding.

44. In October 1795 William Gray wrote to a maltster at Ware that he (and Robert Gray) were using all our Interest
with the Assistance of Our Friends' to get the job, and asked him to ask Samuel Whitbread to recommend them to the Duke
of Bedford.

47. There are no surviving records of vestry meetings for the period April 1811 to July 1814.

48. In April 1877 it was proposed that they should be re-erected at the Henrietta Street and King Street entrances to the
churchyard but this was not done.

49. Pilkington was also to figure as Clutton's successor at the Sacred Heart R.C. Church, Bournemouth, in 1896–8.

50. A description of the church as first built will be found on pages 66–70.

51. One surviving provisional estimate totalling some £1,055 for painting and decoration (from W. J. Neatby of Glebe
Place, Chelsea) mentions work to be done on the ceiling and cornice (£435), on the walls excluding figure panels (£270), on
the two blind windows (£50), and on figure panels, probably eight in number, to be painted on canvas from finished cartoons
supplied by W. Lonsdale (£300).

52. The vestry liked to employ local tradesmen, but Mr. Mutch, a smith in Maiden Lane, 'declined the Undertaking,
acknowledging that he had not Room or Convenience for undertaking and doing the Work'. Brownley of Wych Street was
employed, at a cost of £303 (plus £168 to a bricklayer).

53. In 1881 the vestry asked the Duke (as it had done previously in 1856) that similar facilities for women should be built,
north of the church, but this was rejected on the ground of expense.

54. Conceivably relevant is the fact that the Earl of Bedford was alleged (in 1638) to have promised the first builders in
Covent Garden that he would put up a brass statue of the king in the centre of the Piazza.

55. With regard to Rivett's connexion with the statue it should perhaps be noted that Sir Thomas Dawes in 1645, after he
had relinquished possession of the statue, noted in his diary on 1 April 'I wrote to Mrs Revett'.

56. In volume XVI of the Survey of London published in 1935 (St. Martin in the Fields, part I, Charing Cross, p. 264) the
evidence that the statue in Covent Garden had come from Roehampton was overlooked, and it was therefore not certainly
identified with that now in Trafalgar Square.